You are using an outdated browser and your browsing experience will not be optimal. Please update to the latest version of Microsoft Edge, Google Chrome or Mozilla Firefox. Install Microsoft Edge

May 8, 2023

New Era of IP Protection Begins in Myanmar as Trademark Law Takes Full Effect

Subscribe to Updates
Managing Intellectual Property

Myanmar’s long-awaited first-to-file trademark registration system came into full effect on April 26, 2023, with the “grand opening” of the country’s Intellectual Property Department (IPD). This followed the issuance of the Trademark Rules and other related notifications at the beginning of April, in conjunction with the Trademark Law coming into force.

Full enforcement of this law is a milestone in Myanmar’s long quest to establish a functioning, modern framework for trademarks in particular and for IP in general. The Trademark Law was passed in 2019 as part of suite of laws meant to modernize the country’s treatment of IP rights. Previously, IP rights holders in Myanmar relied on outdated systems based largely on laws from the colonial period under British rule.

For example, brand owners could achieve some measure of protection through establishing use in the country and recording their marks with the Office of Registration of Deeds (ORD). However, these protections were limited and did not provide the same level of security and legal recourse as a comprehensive trademark registration system. Without a proper system in place, businesses were vulnerable to infringement and counterfeiting, which could be detrimental to their reputation and bottom line. The new Trademark Law will provide much-needed protection to brand owners and encourage innovation and investment in Myanmar, bringing the country in line with other Southeast Asian nations that have already implemented modern IP laws and systems, such as Thailand and Vietnam.

Features of the Trademark Law

In addition to the increased protection and streamlined filing procedures, the Trademark Law offers a range of other salient features:

  • Administration: The core government ministry administering the new Trademark Law is the Ministry of Commerce. Four other ministries—the Ministry of Information; the Ministry of Industry; the Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock and Irrigation; and the Ministry of Education—are named as having supervisory roles.
  • Requirement to Refile: If trademark owners that previously recorded their marks with the ORD, or did not record their marks but can provide evidence of actual use in Myanmar, want to enjoy rights relating to their marks, they must apply for registration in accordance with the new law.
  • Opposition: Oppositions are allowed for the first 60 days from the date of publication. Oppositions can rely on relative grounds of refusal (e.g., identical or similar to existing marks, unauthorized applications and bad faith).
  • Appeal: Registry appeals can be filed within 60 days of the decision date. Further appeals can be filed with the court within 90 days of receipt of the registry’s decision.
  • Invalidation: Invalidation actions can be lodged against registered marks. A limitation period of five years from the registration date applies, unless the claimant is relying on bad-faith claims.
  • Non-Use Cancellation: If a registered trademark has not been used for three continuous years, it may become vulnerable to a cancellation action.
  • Mediation: The availability of mediation procedures remains unclear. However, if one or more parties apply to register identical or similar marks on the same day, or for the same priority date, the registration officer will instruct all applicants to negotiate among themselves in order to determine the name of the applicant for the mark and to resubmit within a specified period.
  • Geographical Identifications: Geographical identification rights can be applied for by (i) persons who produce goods from natural products or resources; (ii) producers of agricultural products; (iii) producers of handicraft or industrial products; and (iv) responsible persons from government departments and organizations representing the persons described in the previous three categories. The term of protection will be extended provided the special characteristics, qualities or reputation for which the GI has been allowed protection continue to exist.
  • Licenses: Trademark licenses must be recorded.
  • Trade Names: Trade name protection is available either as a part of a trademark or separately and will be protected with or without registration. There is no mandatory requirement for registration.
  • Infringement: Civil and criminal actions are available to address infringement. Criminal penalties include up to 10 years’ imprisonment and a fine of up to MMK 10 million (approximately USD 4,740).

Next Steps

The grand opening means that marks filed during the IPD’s “soft opening” period, and for which all fees have been fully paid, will be officially accorded the first filing date on the date of the IPD’s grand opening. This marks a significant change under the Trademark Law’s new first-to-file system, and mark owners who submitted marks during the soft opening period need to pay the official filing fees before April 26 to secure the earliest possible filing date (i.e., April 26, 2023). Mark owners also need to submit a notarized Appointment of Representative form—a newly introduced form that is different from a power of attorney—to the IPD to enable their trademark representative in Myanmar to carry out this step.

With the trademark system coming into full effect with the IPD’s grand opening, mark owners will be able to file registration applications for new marks, which has not been permitted during the soft opening period. To expedite this process, mark owners should start preparing all necessary documents for filing their new trademark applications.

This is a significant development for Myanmar, as the country has previously lacked a robust system of IP protection. The new Trademark Law is a strong affirmation of Myanmar’s commitment to creating a modern, market-oriented economy that can attract foreign investment and promote economic growth.

This article first appeared in Managing Intellectual Property.

Related Professionals

Practices

Intellectual Property

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

August 30, 2024
As in many other countries, registered trademarks in Indonesia that are not used for a given period of time can be canceled. A recent decision (Decision No. 144/PUU-XXI/2023) from the country’s Constitutional Court has extended the non-use cancellation period from three years to five years, applicable from July 30, 2024. This ruling could have a major impact on trademark holders in the country. Background of the Case Article 74 of Indonesia’s Trademark Law of 2016 specifies that trademarks can be canceled if they go unused in the trade of goods or services for three consecutive years from the date of registration or last use. This provision is aligned with the Paris Convention and the TRIPs Agreement. On October 27, 2023, an Indonesian individual named Ricky Thio asked the Constitutional Court to examine the constitutionality of Article 74, arguing that it opened a pathway for third parties to eliminate trademarks owned by small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), and did not provide certainty to his registered trademark in terms of the period of protection. Additionally, he argued that the period of three consecutive years was burdensome for SMEs, and asked the court to void Article 74 and add force majeure circumstances—such as Covid-19—as an exemption to non-use cancellation. Mr. Thio submitted this request while he was defending his trademark registration from a non-use cancellation request filed by Zhejiang Dahua Technology Co., Ltd. In his defense to that cancellation request, Mr. Thio explained that the non-use of the trademark was due to the Covid-19 pandemic. The cancellation case followed a different judicial pathway, and was under appeal before the Supreme Court at the time Mr. Thio filed his request for judicial review with the Constitutional Court. Mr. Thio’s case also attracted the submission of an amicus brief—a relatively new trend in Indonesia—from
Read More
August 30, 2024
In 2023, Vietnam’s Intellectual Property Rights Infringement Prevention Cooperation Program reported that 776 cases of IPR infringement were resolved nationwide. Of these, 546 were addressed through administrative measures, while criminal proceedings were initiated in just five cases. These statistics clearly show that administrative measures overwhelmingly dominate the response to counterfeit goods, with criminal actions being relatively rare. This raises an intriguing question: Why do IPR holders prefer administrative routes over criminal measures in Vietnam? And what challenges and obstacles make criminal enforcement less commonly pursued in these cases? Overlapping legal provisions Under Vietnam’s Penal Code, two key offenses address counterfeit goods: Manufacturing and trading in counterfeit goods under Article 192. Manufacturing and trading in industrial property rights-infringing goods under Article 226. Both provisions regulate counterfeit goods, yet they suffer from a lack of clear definitions and guidelines for application. Article 192 does not explicitly define “counterfeit goods”. Instead, authorities refer to Article 3.7 of Decree No. 98/2020/ND-CP, as amended, which outlines several categories of counterfeit goods, including: (i) utility counterfeits (goods not meeting normal expectations of usage or function), (ii) substandard goods, (iii) counterfeit goods based on misrepresentation, and (iv) counterfeit stamps, labels, and packaging. Meanwhile, Article 226 specifically deals with counterfeit goods that infringe trademark rights. These “trademark-counterfeit goods” are defined under Article 213.2 of the IP Law as goods or packaging bearing trademarks or signs that are identical or confusingly similar to protected trademarks for the same goods, used without the trademark owner’s permission. In this regard, “counterfeit goods” and “trademark-counterfeit goods” are treated as distinct, non-overlapping concepts, each corresponding to a separate offense. However, in practice, there is often a gray area where the two overlap. Many cases involve infringing goods that meet the criteria for both categories, allowing authorities to apply both regulations simultaneously. For
Read More
August 30, 2024
With the emergence of online marketplaces and e-commerce platforms, consumers have transformed their ways of engaging in transactions, gaining unprecedented convenience and access to a vast array of products. These platforms allow small businesses and individual entrepreneurs to reach a wider audience in an increasingly competitive market. Challenges in Tracing Online Infringers The growth of these online marketplaces and e-commerce platforms has also given rise to challenges, particularly in locating the actual identity of online infringers and combating intellectual property infringement activities. Online infringers often take advantage of anonymity to offer counterfeit products for sale on their platforms. Not only do these online infringing activities violate the rights of IP owners, but they also involve the sale of counterfeit products that are often manufactured with inferior quality and may pose significant risks to consumers’ health and safety. In today’s modern world, tracing the actual identity of online infringers proves challenging, as infringers adopt numerous methods to conceal their identity. The most frequently used method is using a fake name and address when dispatching parcels to consumers, making it difficult to verify the seller’s identity and the location of the sender on the parcel package. Some infringers exploit cash-on-delivery logistics services to prevent the disclosure of their identity, such as bank account numbers and bank account owner names, which would typically be required for direct payments. Instead, the shipping company collects the payment on their behalf, allowing the infringers to remain anonymous and making it more difficult to find their actual identity. Thailand’s New Regulations on Cash-on-Delivery Logistics Services Recently, the Committee on Contracts of Thailand’s Consumer Protection Board announced the Notification regarding Stipulation of Cash-on-Delivery Logistics Services as a Controlled-Receipt Business B.E. 2567 (2024) under the Consumer Protection Act B.E. 2522 (1979) in the Thai Royal Gazette dated July
Read More
August 7, 2024
A recent case at the Myanmar Competition Commission has set a significant precedent in the country’s approach to unfair competition practices. The case, involving a Thai manufacturer of cement grout and tile adhesive products and a local Myanmar producer, highlighted the Commission’s willingness to address issues of deceptive marketing and unfair competition. Background The case centered around a Thai manufacturer who has been distributing their cement grout and tile adhesive products in Myanmar for many years through local distribution agents. The company had established a well-known brand and a strong reputation for quality in the Myanmar market. In recent years, the Thai company discovered that a local individual in Myanmar was manufacturing and selling similar products with packaging nearly identical to their own. The local producer was using the same mark device, color, and packaging design themes, and the products contained deceptive information. Legal Proceedings After an initial cease-and-desist letter failed to resolve the issue, a complaint was submitted to the Myanmar Competition Commission. The case was notable because the Commission typically does not address issues of copying designs, marks, colors, or packaging themes. However, the complaint emphasized that the local individual was misleading customers and competing unfairly by using deceptive information and copying distinctive designs and themes. Lawyers from Tilleke & Gibbins, representing the Thai manufacturer, provided extensive documentation proving their client’s long-standing presence in the Myanmar market and the local individual’s deceptive practices. The Commission’s Investigation Committee conducted a thorough investigation, including market surveys and hearings involving both parties. Commission’s Decision After nearly a year of deliberation, on July 4, 2024, the Decision-Making Committee of the Myanmar Competition Commission ruled in favor of the Thai manufacturer. The decision required the local individual to: Immediately cease the production and distribution of cement grout and tile adhesive products bearing
Read More